MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Posted Tuesday, March 8th, 2011 - 10 Comments »
Be Sociable, Share!

Summ(it)ing Up

Summit is in a fascinating position.

They have a monster 5-film franchise that will generate over $2 billion in profit for the company.

They were capitalized at $1 billion.

They have had one other modest blockbuster in their 4 years in business. But if the company is at breakeven, excluding Twilight, it’s just by the skin of its teeth.

There is no Next Franchise in sight.

So what do you do?

You can hand out checks and every investor can feel good about doubling or tripling their money in just 4 years. You can hang on to all the money and not worry about profits and losses over the next 4 or 5 years, taking bigger risks, but not too big a risk on any one film or franchise… see whether lightening strikes again. You could use the cash to acquire another company or library.

it appears that Summit has come up with another option. Get some more cash by refinancing, pay out the investors 100% or so on their investment, Project a cash pool of about $1.5 billion to come in the next 18 months and that leaves the company with only the new $550m load as debt and about $1.3 billion in cash with a $200, credit line for production and distribution costs.

But then.. you have to keep doing business.

It must be a great feeling to have a debt-free indie studio business. And it is a great achievement to deliver a full return an investment on a high-risk new indie studio in just 4 years. And now, you’re gambling with “the house’s money.”

The question is, always, do you take the house’s money home or do you keep rolling those dice. It looks like Summit will keep rolling the dice. It’s almost as though this refinance puts Twilight behind them now and allows them to move on as though it never happened, but that they have removed the weight from the company’s shoulders.

It reminds me a lot, really, of DreamWorks going to and then leaving Paramount. DreamWorks had little choice – aside from SKG eating the company’s debt – other than to “sell” itself to someone. Paramount not only ate their debt, but funded the ongoing, albeit changed, operation, allowing them to recharge their collective batteries and reconfigure with Stacey Snider and some other new players. Coming out the other side, DreamWorks 3.0 is not self-funded, but is well supported by Reliance and it’s full steam ahead. DreamWorks chose to drop the distribution challenge off their plate and to hand it to Disney, where it will (quietly) co-market with the studio as well, though Disney will pay the tab.

Could Summit 2.0 integrate itself into a bigger distributor? That would be a smart play. Why wouldn’t anyone want to be DreamWorks/Imagine/Working Title if that was a completely viable option from “go”?

Will Summit 2.0 try to grow, making an acquisition like Lionsgate? That would be an ego play.

Should Summit 2.0 just keep rolling along as it has, hoping for more Reds, fewer Bandslams, and continuing to snap at the heels of the big boys while trying not to end up becoming a Bruce Springsteen song? That seems like it might be a grind after a $3 billion franchise and a Best Picture Oscar all turning up in the first two years of operation.

Be Sociable, Share!

10 Comments »

10 Responses to “Summ(it)ing Up”

  1. LexG says:
    March 8, 2011 at 12:35 pm

    Greatest STUDIO SHEEN since vintage Orion drab.

    All their movies have that same purple desaturated slickness. BEST COLOR TIMING EVER.

  2. cadavra says:
    March 8, 2011 at 1:36 pm

    As long as it’s not CHARLIE SHEEN.

    WINNING!

  3. SJRubinstein says:
    March 8, 2011 at 2:35 pm

    Where does “Knowing” fit into there? Cost a little less than “Red,” made just a little less than “Red,” both – I think – surprised Summit with their success and both came from banking on interesting filmmakers who brought a specific style to their projects.

  4. LexG says:
    March 8, 2011 at 2:57 pm

    Wasn’t LETTERS TO JULIET a Summit?

    That was a hit, was it not?

  5. anghus says:
    March 8, 2011 at 3:28 pm

    dave’s referred to Letter to Juliet as one of Summit’s non vampire hits before.

  6. David Poland says:
    March 8, 2011 at 3:48 pm

    They have certainly had successes. And they have had a bunch of complete misses. Like I wrote, without Twilight, it’s a breakeven company, probably.

  7. storymark says:
    March 8, 2011 at 4:08 pm

    As long as they don’t fuck up their remake of Highlander, Im cool with whatever they do.

  8. LexG says:
    March 9, 2011 at 2:21 am

    K-STEW K-STEW K-STEW K-STEW K-STEW K-STEW K-STEW.

    MOST BEAUTIFUL WOMAN EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVER.

    TWILIGHT = BETTER THAN STAR WARS. Better than JAMES CAMERON. Better than Batman.

    TWILIGHT 4 EVER. BELLA = MMMMMMMMM LOOK AT HER.

  9. berg says:
    March 9, 2011 at 9:54 am

    Source Code is going to make them some money

  10. Proman says:
    March 9, 2011 at 10:18 am

    I think Source Code is going to keep viewers away with its awful cgi shot of the exploding train. It’s awful.

    But if the movie’s actually any good maybe they’ll coast on word of mouth.

The Hot Blog

Comments Most Recent Archives

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon